Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why? For the PR i guess? (Score 2) 281

Partially because the tools are getting much better. Unity (a popular game engine) works in Windows and Linux, and even had better support for 64bit in linux (the most recent version should even that out). When a game developer can easily make their game for multiple platforms, then easily deploy to multiple platforms through Steam, they can easily access that extra 1% of the market.

Comment Re:I can't see how this will work (Score 1) 1291

That's exactly right. Among other programs we would also be able to eliminate the minimum wage and let market forces take care of wages. If someone wants to make an extra few bucks a day, they can take that easy $1/hour job, but if the employer can't fill spots, they may need to raise their offerings to something more people would be interested in.

Comment Re:Not Free. (Score 1) 210

Well that's because it's stupid to keep following money back. You could say it comes from the employers of those people or back more to the customers of those employers - eventually I guess you'd get back to the government.

It's the same way you say you're paid by your employer, not the customers or the customers' employers.

Comment Re: This legislation brought to you by.. (Score 1) 446


Of course it isn't since there are no known safety concerns of GMOs. It's about fear mongering and irrational people that don't understand scary words like "GENETIC".

What's "deficient" is knowledge of which products are using a technology that people object to on, for example, the grounds that Monsanto's use of patented GMO crops are polluting neighbor small farmers who are then inadvertently find themselves in trouble for patent infringement.

Not all GMO crops are patented under abusive corporations and not all GMO crops can cross-pollinate. Unless we label all products that come from unethical corporations, no reason to start here. If we do start here, we should label them "Unethical corporation food", not "GMO"

Another reason is people don't like new technologies forced on them whether they like it or not.

Do we give them that choice for other technologies? Of course not! If some crops are grown with a new type of fertilizer or processed in a different way, that's not indicated in any way, should we label food with "Harvested with Mark-12 combine harvester" as well? What about just a generic "Brought to you by new technology" rather than just the specific case for GMO

They know if they label GMOs some people won't buy them because of it.

This is exactly the reason why we shouldn't have mandatory labeling - people won't buy products they see have scary "GMO" on them, but they aren't doing that for any reason.
Now if food manufacturers want to label their foods as "GMO-free" or "Asbestos-free" or even "GMO", they should be free to do so, but we shouldn't be passing laws requiring food that comes from a different process be labeled because some people don't like scary words.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.